BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
The Dalai Lama, spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism living in exile in India since 1959, created a minor sensation last week by stating that Partition could have been averted if Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had been made Prime Minister of undivided India as suggested by Mahatma Gandhi.
He mentioned Gandhi’s suggestion and Nehru’s reported opposition to it while responding to a student who had asked how one could avoid committing mistakes in life. He said Nehru, who was a very experienced person, had made a mistake in opposing Gandhi’s proposal.
Nehru-baiters, whose number has swelled in recent years, picked up the Dalai Lama’s observation and circulated it in the social media. Some, however, thought it was ironical that such a criticism should come from the Dalai Lama. They suggested Nehru had made a bigger mistake in inviting China’s ire by granting asylum to the Tibetan leader.
The Dalai Lama’s reading of the critical period in recent Indian history is apparently too simplistic. Richard Attenborough, in his film “Gandhi”, has played up his hero’s readiness to offer prime ministership of undivided India to Jinnah. However, Gandhi’s contemporaries viewed it only as a desperate last-minute gamble to prevent Partition.
Gandhi used to refer to division of the country as vivisection. He voiced his opposition to it with the words, “Over my dead body”.
According to the published papers of Earl Mountbatten, the last Viceroy who pushed through the Partition plan, Gandhi suggested to him on or around April 1, 1947 to invite Jinnah to form an Interim Government comprising Muslim League members to replace the one headed by Nehru which had been in office since the previous September.
What would Jinnah say to the proposal, the Viceroy asked. Gandhi replied that if Jinnah knew he was the author of the plan he would say, “Wily Gandhi!” Mountbatten said he presumed Jinnah would be right. “No,” Gandhi said, “I am entirely sincere in my suggestion.”
Mountbatten told Gandhi he would discuss the suggestion with Nehru and Mailana Abul Kalam Azad in strict confidence.
When Mountbatten told Nehru about it, he said Gandhi had made the same suggestion before the British Cabinet Mission which visited India the previous year. The Mission considered it impracticable and turned it down.
Stanley Wolpert, the American scholar who has done extensive research on the period, in his book, “Jinnah of Pakistan”, dismisses accounts that Nehru reacted angrily or with shock to Gandhi’s proposal. He says Nehru merely expressed doubt that it would be acceptable to Jinnah.
Gandhi suggested Jinnah’s appointment as the Prime Minister to Mountbatten after the Congress Working Committee had agreed to Partition, ignoring his known opposition to it.
At that time an interim Parliament in which the Congress party will have an overwhelming majority was in the final stages of formation. Could Jinnah have run the government with a Congress-dominated legislature?
In any case, by then, it was too late to solve the issue of Hindu-Muslim relations by offering Jinnah a key role. The crux of the issue was the growing feeling among the minority that it might not get a fair deal in a set-up dominated by the majority. Jinnah, who was a staunch advocate of composite nationalism to begin with, had been thoroughly disillusioned with the Hindu leadership of the Congress.
In his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth, Gandhi mentions that, on his return to India from South Africa in 1915, he devoted much thought to finding an issue on which the Hindus and the Muslims could unite and a leader who could bring the Muslims closer to the nationalist movement.
The issue he found was the demand for restoration of the Sultan of Turkey as the Caliph. He did not view Jinnah, who was rising fast in the Congress hierarchy, as a leader who could cement the Congress’s relationship with the Muslims. He placed his trust in two brothers, Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali.
Jinnah ended his association with the Congress in 1920 after Gandhi followers shouted him down for not referring to their leader as Mahatma. Maybe the course of history would have been different if Gandhi and Jinnah could pull together but the Partition decision was dictated by factors far more vital than personal equations.
Before the week was over, the Dalai Lama took note of the criticism of his remark and offered a graceful apology. Talking to media persons in Bangalore, he said, “I apologise if I have said something wrong.” -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, August 15, 2018.
Gulf Today
The Dalai Lama, spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism living in exile in India since 1959, created a minor sensation last week by stating that Partition could have been averted if Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had been made Prime Minister of undivided India as suggested by Mahatma Gandhi.
He mentioned Gandhi’s suggestion and Nehru’s reported opposition to it while responding to a student who had asked how one could avoid committing mistakes in life. He said Nehru, who was a very experienced person, had made a mistake in opposing Gandhi’s proposal.
Nehru-baiters, whose number has swelled in recent years, picked up the Dalai Lama’s observation and circulated it in the social media. Some, however, thought it was ironical that such a criticism should come from the Dalai Lama. They suggested Nehru had made a bigger mistake in inviting China’s ire by granting asylum to the Tibetan leader.
The Dalai Lama’s reading of the critical period in recent Indian history is apparently too simplistic. Richard Attenborough, in his film “Gandhi”, has played up his hero’s readiness to offer prime ministership of undivided India to Jinnah. However, Gandhi’s contemporaries viewed it only as a desperate last-minute gamble to prevent Partition.
Gandhi used to refer to division of the country as vivisection. He voiced his opposition to it with the words, “Over my dead body”.
According to the published papers of Earl Mountbatten, the last Viceroy who pushed through the Partition plan, Gandhi suggested to him on or around April 1, 1947 to invite Jinnah to form an Interim Government comprising Muslim League members to replace the one headed by Nehru which had been in office since the previous September.
What would Jinnah say to the proposal, the Viceroy asked. Gandhi replied that if Jinnah knew he was the author of the plan he would say, “Wily Gandhi!” Mountbatten said he presumed Jinnah would be right. “No,” Gandhi said, “I am entirely sincere in my suggestion.”
Mountbatten told Gandhi he would discuss the suggestion with Nehru and Mailana Abul Kalam Azad in strict confidence.
When Mountbatten told Nehru about it, he said Gandhi had made the same suggestion before the British Cabinet Mission which visited India the previous year. The Mission considered it impracticable and turned it down.
Stanley Wolpert, the American scholar who has done extensive research on the period, in his book, “Jinnah of Pakistan”, dismisses accounts that Nehru reacted angrily or with shock to Gandhi’s proposal. He says Nehru merely expressed doubt that it would be acceptable to Jinnah.
Gandhi suggested Jinnah’s appointment as the Prime Minister to Mountbatten after the Congress Working Committee had agreed to Partition, ignoring his known opposition to it.
At that time an interim Parliament in which the Congress party will have an overwhelming majority was in the final stages of formation. Could Jinnah have run the government with a Congress-dominated legislature?
In any case, by then, it was too late to solve the issue of Hindu-Muslim relations by offering Jinnah a key role. The crux of the issue was the growing feeling among the minority that it might not get a fair deal in a set-up dominated by the majority. Jinnah, who was a staunch advocate of composite nationalism to begin with, had been thoroughly disillusioned with the Hindu leadership of the Congress.
In his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth, Gandhi mentions that, on his return to India from South Africa in 1915, he devoted much thought to finding an issue on which the Hindus and the Muslims could unite and a leader who could bring the Muslims closer to the nationalist movement.
The issue he found was the demand for restoration of the Sultan of Turkey as the Caliph. He did not view Jinnah, who was rising fast in the Congress hierarchy, as a leader who could cement the Congress’s relationship with the Muslims. He placed his trust in two brothers, Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali.
Jinnah ended his association with the Congress in 1920 after Gandhi followers shouted him down for not referring to their leader as Mahatma. Maybe the course of history would have been different if Gandhi and Jinnah could pull together but the Partition decision was dictated by factors far more vital than personal equations.
Before the week was over, the Dalai Lama took note of the criticism of his remark and offered a graceful apology. Talking to media persons in Bangalore, he said, “I apologise if I have said something wrong.” -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, August 15, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment